Washington Post Shrugs Off Torture Because, You Know, It Polls Well
from the wait,-what?!? dept
We've written before about Jay Rosen's excellent explanation of "the church of the savvy," in which political reporters seem more focused on describing the "horse race" aspect of politics rather than the truth. It's the old story in which the press ignores, say, a really good concept because "politicians won't support it." A key giveaway for a "savvy" post is to focus on "what the polls say" rather than what reality says. That doesn't mean that polls are never useful or shouldn't be reported on -- but when they get in the way of the actual story, it can make for ridiculous results.Take, as a quintessential example, the Washington Post's Aaron Blake giving us the latest on torture's polling numbers. Apparently, the polls tell us that Americans are okay with torture (even when they believe it's torture):
A Pew poll shows Americans say, by a two-to-one margin (56-28), say the CIA's interrogation methods after 9/11 "provided intelligence that helped prevent terrorist attacks."Now, an actual reporter might point out that (1) these Americans are wrong and (2) that it doesn't fucking matter whether or not torture works -- it's still reprehensible. But, instead, Blake concludes that, boy, this sure is a loss for the Democrats:
Similarly, a CBS News poll shows that 57 percent of Americans think waterboarding and other interrogation techniques practiced by the CIA "provide reliable information that helps prevent terrorist attacks" either "often" or "sometimes." Just 8 percent say it "never" provides quality information, while 24 percent say it "rarely" does.
And finally, a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday morning shows people say 53-31 that the CIA's program did "produce important information that could not have been obtained any other way."
And as long as people believe torturing terrorism detainees leads to valuable information, the CIA's interrogation program — and torture in general — are unlikely to face a major public backlash.So the only "reality" in the article is the fact that the public's depraved position is bad for one particular party. Apparently, it's not bad for "humanity" or common sense or human rights or America. It's just bad for one party? Rather than actually educating the public -- which reporters are supposed to be doing -- the focus is just on what these polling numbers mean for torture -- presented in the same way one might discuss the polling numbers for a regular election.
This is the unhappy reality being confronted by Democrats who had hoped to make a splash with the CIA report.
This isn't a political horse race we're talking about here. This is about a fundamental issue of human rights, and the press is acting like all that matters is torture's polling numbers?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aaron blake, church of the savvy, cia, journalism, polling, polls, torture, torture report, washington post
Companies: washington post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Unhappy reality"
WaPo presents poll results suggesting that print news organizations lose any shred of relevance by failing to provide context for ill-conceived polls.
Only problem: Nobody reads the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Unhappy reality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Unhappy reality"
Many people have started realizing that tv is no longer real entertainment nor that it is worth the price that many cable companies and producer/studios over value their products to be.
The exodus started with magazines, then newspapers, and now broadcasting. Each lost touch with it's audiences needs and wants and viewership/readership left. Maybe one of the strongest condemnations of too few corporate owners owning too many major sources.
Today there are no meaningful exposes of wrongdoing by government and politicians. Instead you get something like this article. People plainly see and know this isn't something they agree with, no matter what it says in the news. So they leave to other sources that might prove more accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Unhappy reality"
I find one of the few attractions the mainstream news has to offer now is as a case study in the delivery of propaganda (governmental and commercial). I enjoy going to google news just to analyze the headlines and speculate as to the probable drivers - those typically being; money, power, cover-up, prestige mongering, and/or related FUD - behind the latest terrorist/pedophile/drug-dealer/high-calorie-soft-drink/consumer threat and then track their evolution over time. To me, it's as interesting as it is hilarious.
It always leaves me wondering if they realize just how ridiculous they are. Probably not. Hubris is a hellava drug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pathetic - absolutely fucking pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who are these idiots Polling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tyranny of the majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Tyranny of corporations" makes more sense — wasn't it a corporation that made out like bandits for providing psychological services for CIA torture?
Aren't our reps all bought and paid for by the corporations, for the most part?
Do you realize that the mainstream media is controlled by 6 corporations?
Tyranny of the what? The majority aren't paying attention, they're too busy getting bogged down in partisan issues or watching reality TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinda...
To start out, I agree that torture is deplorable. Making the assumption the Pew poll is statistically relevant, the fact that citizens do think its ok IS A STORY. That is news, regardless of the author's personal feelings. Holding back evidence based on personal belief is bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kinda...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kinda...
I'm not saying that it's not a story. It is. But turning it into a story that's so glibly about the numbers, rather than *what that means* is a problem. Claiming that it's a problem for Democrats that torture polls well, rather than a problem for *humanity* seems like a big part of the problem here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kinda...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kinda...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kinda...
Also, your comments section is obnoxious for my mobile. The text field isn't given focus first, then it loses focus when I tap inside it, then loses focus when I tap in it again. I can't tell you when it started but it's not recent. Safari on iOS 8.1.2 on an iPhone 5c.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kinda...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) a lot of Americans are ill informed about the subject.
2) the CIA's big lie has worked. They've claimed that torturing random people was totally necessary and helpful for so long, and so often, that people believe them now that we finally have the proof that it wasn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We are now reaping the rewards of two decades of people watching the #1 news station. The "new Rupert reality" has been created, and it matters little if it matches up with reality, people still believe it on faith.
Even if, occasionally, these peeps are forced to see a deviation from their beliefs in reality, they discount those facts as "a glitch in the matrix". Cognitive dissonance be damned. Let's go find some better facts elsewhere. Yay confirmation bias!
Hate to keep making it about that news station. But I truly believe that's where a large part of the problem is. I'm not going to Godwin this, but there have been other cases where long-term propaganda can shift perceptions, and cause great harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) a lot of Americans are ill informed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral Relativism is idiotic
If person supposedly tortured walk away then it isn't fkn torture.
An idiot just above complains that America is the same as some brutal dictatorship and yet voted for Big Govt Liberals his entire pathetic life..
When Americas 2nd Civil War officially begins Progressive/Liberal/Democrats will encounter torture first hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
Should I assume you're a bible thumping "Christian" given your obvious leaning to the right? If so, how do you reconcile the whole "Christ" thing with torturing people?
Right after you take your foot out of your mouth, feel free to answer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral Relativism is irrelevant.
And the answer to that is observable: in nature, the natural order, that is rule by might (or the best survival traits) is what serves. Notions of reciprocity exist between animals within the same pack, but there is no penalty for stealing a meal, for taking control of territory or for killing.
Human morality is based on reciprocity. It's an agreement, usually unspoken of reasonable regard. I won't mess with you and yours so long as you don't mess with mine, and if I can trust you not to shoot at me, we might be able to trade now and again.
That said, the consequentialist arguments against torture are plentiful. When the US had a reputation of treating POWs well, Warsaw Pact soldiers were more than willing to surrender to us. When we offered better care than their own supply, it went far to convince them that ours really was a superior ideology. They cooperated more. We got better intel.
Also we tortured a lot fewer innocent bystanders who got accidentally entangled in international affairs. So we didn't have to regret collateral casualties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
Though that lucky person likely gets to keep the physical, and psychological damage the rest of their lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
tor·ture
ˈtôrCHər/Submit
noun
1.
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.
I don't see anything about not walking away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
Tell John McCain that. As a matter of fact, tell any living veteran that endured torture that by virtue of the fact that they're still alive, they haven't been tortured.
Let us know how that works out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
There, I fixed that for you, including the words you were missing. Did Fox News not teach you how to write?
But the guy that froze to death would qualify for even your absurdly strict definition of torture.
Feel free to submit yourself for waterboarding and endless hours of loud music and then come back and tell is it's not torture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
That was really his own fault for not generating enough body heat to stay alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
It's patriotic enhanced Murican liberation from not-being-in-pain-and-distress techniques!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Relativism is idiotic
Strange logic you have...its not torture if it doesn't involve the ability to walk...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When is Bezos going to step in on this?
As we all know, the framing of a poll can matter a hell of a lot to the result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Human Rights?
Nationalism, prejudice, and fear still reign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Human Rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What could have been
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What could have been
It would be damned as “victor's justice”? An associate justice would condemn the proceedings as “substituting power for principle”? And the Chief Justice would call it “a high-grade lynching party”, and “too sanctimonious” for his old-fashioned notions?
Could that be the criticism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What could have been
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enhanced Interrogation
Of course we may have had to specify Enhanced Interrogation because we got so comfortable with torture that we did it in the back room, and didn't have to export a person to a black site anymore. Room 101.
It's like weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) when they are in the hands of the US or USSR were strategic weapons. Those things that delivered them (bombers and submarines) were strategic units.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I blame the press.
If the first amendment condones lying, then why is shouting fire in a crowded theater wrong? The notion goes that it endangers people. The lying by our government is endangering people, in a bunch of different ways.
What will it take to get the common person to recognize this, and when are we going to do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I blame the press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blaming the press...
Regarding lying, we know that people lie to the House, to the Senate, to SCOTUS and to the President all the time with impunity, and no one cares to enforce perjury in those circumstances.
That's not now it's supposed to be. That's just how it is. And no-one who has power to change it wants to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading along, I would have assumed the author was providing some disturbing background that would lead into some analysis of moral issues (maybe a few words about human rights, or interviews with survivors of torture, or something) and legal implications (e.g. Convention Against Torture and the obligation to investigate and prosecute these crimes).
But then:
Is this all some f***ing game to them? Just politics and business as usual and which side scores the most points and "hey look who's going to be our guest on 'Meet the Press' next week"?
Officials of my country engaged in a deliberate and systematic program of brutality, a program that violated U.S. and international law as well as fundamental principles of human decency. With drone strikes (and other actions), they continue to engage in extrajudicial execution with impunity.
This isn't a political issue. At least, gods help us, it shouldn't be. This is a fundamental moral issue -- a question of who we are as a people, and what sort of country we want to be.
And, yes, elected leaders are trying to make this into a partisan issue, and they will continue to do so as long as we allow it. But we don't have to allow it. And journalists -- who are supposed to serve as as independent monitors of power -- should refuse to play along.
That means calling out Dick Cheney when he defends the indefensible. That means challenging President Obama on the morality and legality of drone strikes (and the continued assertion of absolute authority based on an unending global "war on terror"). And, yes, it also means confronting the public with uncomfortable truths when we get it wrong. Because journalists also have an obligation to the truth, no matter how unpopular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Shouldn't that be "we are as our corporate overlords...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As long as people buy into the idea that all the bad stuff is because of 'the other team', then both sides will use that to their advantage without hesitation, because, as disgusting as it may be for those of us able to think, it works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rest all believe in the fantasy world contained in the television show "24". Jack gets results.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise at these numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No surprise about WaPo's indifference to torture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
100% of people could believe the world is flat but it doesn't mean that they are correct.
I bet the pro-torture people will change their tune immediately when one of their family members is on the rack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thoroughly disgusted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thoroughly disgusted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thoroughly disgusted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thoroughly disgusted
Which is an issue of morals. I consider your stance to be not simply immoral, but outright evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thoroughly disgusted
The only moral, good way out of a conflict is passivism. Good luck building that world, because even if you succeed there's no afterlife for the human race to pay itself on the back in when the world falls apart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thoroughly disgusted
Initiating was is, yes, but engaging in war may not be. I don't think it is immoral for a nation to defend itself against an invasion, for example.
"I doubt you'll dethrone war heros over it the way you demonize politicians who show even an inkling of support for torture programs."
I don't think that you know me remotely well enough to be able to predict that. In fact, it's hard for me to respond to your statement because you're assuming a lot of things that have to be answered individually -- starting with the very complicated question of whether "war heroes" actually exist or not.
That said, between people who advocate and support torture and people who fight in wars, the people who advocate and support torture are committing the greater evil.
"The only moral, good way out of a conflict is passivism"
We will never agree on this point, but I acknowledge the purity of your stance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thoroughly disgusted
The mere thought that there could, possibly, hypothetically, exist a scenario in which torture would be ok is repulsive.
That is a sure path to the dark side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thoroughly disgusted
Then I'm fairly fine with you getting tortured. And I don't need an "if" or "your bad" to justify my position or appear moral to the masses. You justified my position on your own.
Not that I'm a tat-for-tat kind of a guy. I'm also fine with simply shooting you. Your attitude is not worth defending. Which means, your life is of little relevance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thoroughly disgusted
Thank you for displaying how similar to those who defend torture programs you truly are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thoroughly disgusted
Aaron Blake simply made these statistics up without doing a single microsecond of research.
- the poll doesn't exist anywhere except Aaron Blake's fevered dreams of a nation where somehow HE gets to decide whats truth and whats not.
THis is a guy that Jeff Bezos should be kicking out the door ASAP...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thoroughly disgusted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torture doesn't work? Oh, it works. Why do you think that the vast majority of military folks (combat types) would never surrender? E&E, evade and escape. That is the goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Define "work"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Define "work"
Of course that's going down the wrong line of thought. Even if torture worked 100% of the time, and gave 100% accurate information every time, it would still not be acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Define "work"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Define "work"
"Yeah, these terrorists are really resistant to enhanced interrogation...ha ha, I mean torture. Well, we'll just have to keep doing it until they break down and tell us about their terrorist buddies!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Define "work"
The minute they start torturing you, you have to give them something, anything.
Just repeating "I don't know anything" keeps getting translated into "I know something but I'm not telling you".
Remember, it's torture. They won't stop untill they get something. And even then they might not stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And now those facing the US military are telling themselves the exact same thing, for the exact same reason. Really makes you feel proud of what the country has become, doesn't it?
So I'm curious, as a former military person, how's it feel to know that the US military is now little better than the other side, and that those fighting it are better off never surrendering, increasing fatalities on both sides, as both are better of dying in battle than being captured?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you count all the people we tortured in conjunction with our invasion and occupation of Iraq (which was totally uninvolved with 9/11), then that figure is a lot higher than 25%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Marines don't surrender because of our ethos and because you are more likely to win a battle if you don't consider surrender an option, not because we're afraid that the enemy will capture and torture us for information. The sad truth is that if you're in position to get captured you're probably on the front lines...which means you're probably not very high in rank and probably don't have all that much useful information to give anyway. It's not like a Marine base is well hidden, and the moment we know someone is captured we're going to change all our patrol routes, countersigns, and other sensitive information anyway. All the enemy is likely to learn is the small piece of the plan that you know.
Don't claim the Marine Corps taught you that torture works, or that it believes in torture. That's completely the opposite of our training. You might want to brush up on your SERE handbook before claiming the military taught you torture worked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torture works!
Of course they say that. TV (like 24) and films (going back to Guns of Navarone and before) has taught people that torture works.
Just like Reagan's "Star Wars" shot down missiles like child's play. And spaceships (like the Enterprise) make a "swoosh" noise as they fly by you in outer space. And watching MacGyver has taught us that you can make a homemade explosive from cornstarch and baking soda.
Too bad Pew didn't vet the interviewees to see if they knew the difference between TV truth and reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
after the September 11th terrorist attacks
December 11-14, 2014" very closely or fairly closely and only 28 people think the torture did not provide intelligence that helped prevent terrorist attacks.
So what they are saying is 21 people followed the news about the torture reports and still think that there was useful intelligence provided.
Either our reporting is woefully inadequate, or they found 21 people that have reading comprehension issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
Too bad, but irrelevant. It's on about the same level of importance whether people believe that one can change the weather with human sacrifices.
It's not important whether somebody gets the answer wrong. What is important is whether some sick deranged idiot considers a potential change in weather relevant enough to go on a killing spree.
If people said "oh, we don't want to torture because it does not work", that makes them morally equivalent to the human trash Cheney who states that he sees nothing wrong with torture as long as it leads to results.
With that logic there was nothing wrong with the holocaust because it indeed caused money to transfer from jews to the German state, and indeed it increased the ratio of people with Germanic origins over those with a Near Eastern background. So the holocaust was effective in achieving its goals and there was nothing wrong with it.
Cheney logic. But the pertinent question is not "do you believe it could achieve its nominal purpose" but rather "should we do that?".
And unless you are amoral scum, those questions are entirely different ones.
And in this poll, there apparently was not even the option of "I am not going to dignify this abomination with even considering whether or not it is going anywhere because as an American I feel bound to stand up for humanity and defend it even if that means there may a price for me to pay".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
1.) necessary
2.) effective, and
3.) proportionate
It is not necessary, because other intelligence-gathering processes exist. It isn't effective, unless by intelligence we mean "what the guy thinks telling us will make us stop," and it can only be considered proportionate if it solves more problems than it creates. That's only partially a moral outrage issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
Both Christianity and the U.S.A. derive much of their own self-image and self-justification from a history of "I will not accept the price of stooping to the level of my enemies and becoming indistinguishable from them".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
Let's put our story out in the desert southwest, oh, say, in about the 1870s. The Apaches attack. The preacher's wife and daughter get taken into the Sierra Madre.
The travelling preacher man reverently places the Bible in his saddlebags, fills up two canteens, and rides his horse out to rescue the wife and daughter...
Is the desert going to change his view of the world? Look at the glorious scenery, the sunrises, the sunsets...
Does he take a Peacemaker along for the ride? A Winchester?
How does this movie end? Do the wife and daughter want to be rescued by this hard, righteous, God-fearing preacher man? To go back to the revival tent shows travelling from gold camp, to silver camp, to timber camp, and boom to bust?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
I think it's very likely that my opinion wouldn't change, but if it did, that just means that I've doubly lost, as I have become my enemy.
"The issue is 100% about whether or not it is effective. It's not about whether not it's moral"
No, sorry. The issue is 0% about whether or not it is effective. It's completely about whether or not it's moral. If torture were 100% effective, it would make it no less objectionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
To simply drink the blood of a stolen horse?
What does the Bible have to say about all that?—when you're in the desert chasing after the Apaches who've spirited away the wife and daughter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
2. We don't live in your alternate reality. We live in this one.
3. You don't have to rely on the Bible in order to understand the immorality of cruelty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
The bible makes as good a case for Genocide being a moral option, as it does for turning the other cheek. It is an utterly worthless document upon which to base one's moral compass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: horse race coverage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: horse race coverage
Beyond polls being intentionally crafted and presented for the agenda of whoever is conducting them, the idea that Americans should necessarily be swayed by the purported opinions of those around them without actually reasoning being presented is inherently flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It does matter wether torture works
Because of this, one has to then ask why? Why do so many support torture (of Muslims, I suspect)? This leaves two possibilities: People mistakenly believes it does work; or, they just want to make our "enemies" suffer. Revenge fantasies and sadism, in other words. It shouldn't be hard to design a poll that ferrets out which one of these it is. I don't think the results would be flattering.
9/11 has brought out the worst in us. We have become meaner, more selfish. Or, probably more accurately, it has allowed many of us to openly display these qualities with self-righteousness. The gloves were off, as Cheney put it. Racists and haters could now come out of the woodwork and vent their hate at The Enemy (and anyone else they didn't like) with impunity. We are seeing the results today within our police departments, and within our federal government.
Can there be any wonder that the general population is following suit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The razing of Sodom
Part of the problem is we don't know what cities they were, the names Sodom and Gomorrah meaning "burned" or "ruined heap" respectively, so we don't know where to send the archeologists to start digging.
But the tale has its hints, that both were torn heavily by warfare, and they were paranoid of strangers, and unfamiliar faces were identified, detained, interrogated and humiliated, if not outright executed. Whether it was the hand of God, or a besieging army, what ever it was, was pissed.
(And whether its true or not, the tale might have applicability.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The razing of Sodom
I like showing this to the "Let Them Die" brigade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted December 11-14, 2014 among a national sample of 1,001 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in the continental United States (500 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 501 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 306 who had no landline telephone)."
sooooooo....not % of all Americans....they were targeting.
and they never publish their questions so honestly, despite their Question Wording methodology this poll is useless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are no better than authoritarian countries
Every country can justify torture when you view it purely from the "ends justify the means" perspective. But it takes a civilised country & its population to say no to torture even if terrible crimes have been committed against the people of that country. Its sad to see the US citizens in this poll don't think civil rights applies to anyone else but US citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We are no better than authoritarian countries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We are no better than authoritarian countries
Americans are basically ignorant and arrogant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We are no better than authoritarian countries
I don't like admitting that, but yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Understandable
I'd be pretty reluctant to publish any story pointing out that torture is wrong, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where did it all go to hell? How did we manage to get through WW2 without turning into such wretched creatures, yet some terrorists knock over a few buildings, and all our morality goes out the window?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The American mainland never got attacked during WWII. The bombs, the rationing, the pot-holes, the war, the DEATH, was all OVER THERE. But those buildings were on our soil. That happened to us. Not to others. US. That matters. Then the thin veil of civilisation is stripped and the pretense of morality, nobility and freedom is abandoned.
What is it they say? Three days without food, water and power. That's all it takes to bring out the "worst" of humanity. That's all it takes to end a civilisation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's only when a small group politicians used vengeance as an opportunity to grab power that things went to pot.
200,000 Iraqis have died as revenge for 9/11, none of whom had anything to do with 9/11, and yet those same politicians are still not avenged and are still saying it was all justified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance! I'd tell the person drilling into my eyeball with a power drill anything he wants to hear about, just to get him to stop. The majority of Americans must be soft as puffballs, because they can't even imagine what it'd be like to be tortured for real.
I wonder if the polls would shift if some pictures and videos of classified torture sessions were broadcast on TV. Or if it's something people need to experience for themselves, first hand, before it sinks in.
It makes American's look like animals. Torture is justifiable if we're doing it to "get back" at someone. That logic turns America into the very thing it hates. Terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Polling, well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh boy! Polling!
I wonder if the results would have been the same, if these had been the questions...
(1) Revised question: 'A Pew poll shows Americans say, by a two-to-one margin (56-28), say the CIA's interrogation methods after 9/11 (primarily actions explicitly identified in the Geneva Conventions -- which the United States is bound by after near unanimous passage by both houses of Congress, and legislation which Ronald Reagan gladly and enthusiastically signed) such as simulated drowning and other abusive conditions:
Answer in WP's article: '"provided intelligence that helped prevent terrorist attacks.'
(2) Revised question: A CBS News poll said that 57 percent of Americans think the that torture techniques such as waterboarding and other interrogation techniques -- which the existing anecdotal evidence suggests result in false information due to the torturee's instinctual reaction to save his life by saying whatever the torturer seems to want -- practiced by the CIA:
'"provided reliable information that helped prevent terrorist attacks" either "often" or "sometimes." Just 8 percent say it "never" provides quality information, while 24 percent say it "rarely" does.'
(3) A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday morning shows people say 53-31 that the CIA's program did:
'On the asssumption that torture provides reliable information -- which anecdotal evidence strongly suggests is not the case, produce important information that could not have been obtained any other way.'
I find it... less than convincing that the "average American" has either the familiarity with the small amount of information about the efficacy of torture methods, or the inclination to devote much in the way of thought on the mater.
So -- hooray polls! Hope WP at least sold some ads or something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh boy! Polling!
I wonder if the results would have been the same, if these had been the questions...
(1) Revised question: 'A Pew poll shows Americans say, by a two-to-one margin (56-28), say the CIA's interrogation methods after 9/11 (primarily actions explicitly identified in the Geneva Conventions -- which the United States is bound by after near unanimous passage by both houses of Congress, and legislation which Ronald Reagan gladly and enthusiastically signed) such as simulated drowning and other abusive conditions:
Answer in WP's article: '"provided intelligence that helped prevent terrorist attacks.'
(2) Revised question: A CBS News poll said that 57 percent of Americans think the that torture techniques such as waterboarding and other interrogation techniques -- which the existing anecdotal evidence suggests result in false information due to the torturee's instinctual reaction to save his life by saying whatever the torturer seems to want -- practiced by the CIA:
'"provided reliable information that helped prevent terrorist attacks" either "often" or "sometimes." Just 8 percent say it "never" provides quality information, while 24 percent say it "rarely" does.'
(3) A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday morning shows people say 53-31 that the CIA's program did:
'On the asssumption that torture provides reliable information -- which anecdotal evidence strongly suggests is not the case, produce important information that could not have been obtained any other way.'
I find it... less than convincing that the "average American" has either the familiarity with the small amount of information about the efficacy of torture methods, or the inclination to devote much in the way of thought on the mater.
So -- hooray polls! Hope WP at least sold some ads or something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
White Knighting?
So do, please elaborate. Whatever do you mean?
Regards,
Someone who believes in more liberty than you do, ergo, liberal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As a moderate conservative I tend to get bashed by them for saying that torture is wrong and that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.
Which morals are we talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al Jazeera: Media Versus Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
make up numbers and pretend its reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with polls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]